They keep raising prices, stating that it’s due to inflation, but then they keep having record profits.

Meanwhile, the average American can barely afford rent or food nowadays.

What are we to do? Vote? I have been but that doesn’t seem to do much since I’m just voting for a representative that makes the actual decisions.

  • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    11 months ago

    It will partially fix it because part of the problem is wealth inequality; housing is a form of wealth and becomes more out of reach as wealth concentrates away from people. Giving everyone money serves as redistribution.

    • phillaholic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      Think about it. If everyone has more money that means so do the other people bidding against you. It’s like the college tuition problem. Everyone can get student loans, so colleges have no incentive to keep costs reasonable. Giving college students more money doesn’t fix the problem of college being too expensive.

      • Pat_Riot
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        11 months ago

        You still think you’re bidding against other people for housing. That’s not the case, often, these days. Corporate land grabbing is the largest proponent of the housing crisis. That has to be ended before anything will get better on that front. Education for profit is another absolute crime against the citizenry. College should only cost what education costs, not what it costs to hire the fucking football coach and build a goddamn stadium.

        • phillaholic@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          You’re bidding against both, and increasing the amount of money people have also gives people who already own a home the opportunity to buy another one and get in on the investment those corporation are. All you’ll get is inflation and probably a crash leaving you owing more than the homes worth when it all comes tumbling down. Throwing money isn’t the solution. Building more multi-family buildings and legislating multi-home ownership including corporations is.

      • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        If everyone has more money that means so do the other people bidding against you

        This would make sense if what was being proposed was increasing everyone’s wealth proportionally to how much wealth they already have, but I don’t think anyone is really suggesting that. Think about it this way; say you have 300k and are bidding on a house against someone who has 50 million dollars. They have a strong advantage. Now say you both were gifted 10 million dollars before bidding on the house. Your adversary still has the advantage, but much less of one.

        As an aside I think what you’re saying elsewhere about adjusting laws for more housing is right, but that can’t be the whole solution when the market value of labor is being eroded away. Even if there is a large supply of housing, a share of wealth is needed to buy it, that share has to be somewhat evenly distributed or there are unavoidable problems.

        • phillaholic@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          You’re ignoring the hundred other people with 300k that will getting money and now bidding against me. It’s Supply and Demand.

          • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            I am not, I intended the person with 300k in this example to represent the whole class of people with less. Your assumption seems to be that the relatively accumulating mass of wealth held by the few is just not in competition for houses, but that begs the question, why wouldn’t it be? You can extract rent from housing to profit on it over time. It serves as a safe investment very likely to increase in value. You can convert it into other forms of real estate. You can have multiple homes for convenient travel. There is a lot of incentive there.

            An important feature of supply and demand is that the weight of demand doesn’t depend on a quantity of people, but a quantity of money chasing the same supply. If no one ever had a reason to want more than one house for themselves, maybe it would have more to do with the quantity of individuals, but I think that’s just not the case, they do want more, and it scales.

            • phillaholic@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              I’m not following your point at all here. I’d you give just me extra money, I can probably buy a house. I’d you give everyone more money then I’m back to bidding against everyone else and the cost of housing just rises. We don’t have enough housing in many areas of the country.

              • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                My point is that if you are currently bidding against wealthy financial interests as well as individuals just looking for a place to live, then giving everyone money will raise the buying power of those individuals relative to those interests (because their wealth increases more as a percentage), thereby making all of them more able to afford housing. I don’t know how to put it simpler than that.

                Of course it’s also true that there is not enough housing, again I acknowledge that as the other part of the problem to be addressed separately.

                • phillaholic@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  But it’s not going to increase supply, and somewhere around 70% of homes purchased last year were by individuals. Home prices will rise as individuals can bid higher than before.

                  The only solution is to build more housing.

                  • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    somewhere around 70% of homes purchased last year were by individuals

                    What if you remove individuals who already have a home from that number?

                    Home prices will rise as individuals can bid higher than before.

                    Again, consider relative buying power. Even if you aren’t more wealthy relative to the average person and that stays the same, being more wealthy relative to the wealthiest still gives you greater ability to buy a home. This can be true even if demand and prices rise, and would be true even if it was only 30% of buyers that you’re becoming more competitive against.

                    The only solution is to build more housing.

                    That really should be part of it, but ultimately it is not enough. If wealth inequality gets high enough, if the market regards labor as worthless enough, it isn’t going to matter how much housing there is, it will get repurposed as golf courses or something.